Data Record 2.1 - Initial Refuse Samples with Associated Information

Sample#. Initial Refuse Sample identifier (see Chapter 2).

Locale. Mound or other location at Paso de la Amada.

Provenience(s) included. Minimal provenience units included. See appendix in the print publication for more information about individual units.

Feature #. Feature number, if any.

Phase. Phase or subphase of deposition.

Context. The general type of context (midden, platform fill, etc.).

Lumped Refuse Sample. Identifier of the Lumped Refuse Sample (see Chapter 2) to which this unit is assigned.

Volume Excavated (m³). Calculated from plans, with depths measured by line level.

Weight of Sherds (kg).

Number of Sherds.

Level of Ceramic Analysis. A through E; see Table 2.2.

ƩRimProportion (Level A anlaysis only). Total sum of the rim proportions calculated for individual rim sherds in this unit. Available only for units with analysis to level A (see Table 2.2).

ƩRimProportions--open bowl rims only. Like the proceeding, but here only the rims of open bowls are included.

R1.0-SolidFigurineALL. Total count of fragments of solid figurines.

R1.1Solid Figurine-Head Frag. Counts of head fragments of solid figurines.

R1.2Solid Figurine-Body Frag. Count of body fragments of solid figurines.

R1.3-Solid Figurine-Limb Frag. Count of limb fragments of solid figurines.

R2.0-HllwFigALL. Count of all identified fragments of hollow figurines.

R2.1-Hollow Fig-Head frag. Count of head fragments of hollow figurines

R2.2-Hollow Figurine-Body frag. Count of body fragments of hollow figurines

R2.3-Hollow Figurine-Limb frag. Count of limb fragments of hollow figurines, including also specimens in which the part of the body was uncertain.

R3-Rattle Frags. Count of rattle fragments.

#rattle holes. Total number of perforations present among the rattle fragments from this unit.

R4-Whistle. Count of identified whistle fragments.

R5-Mask. Count of identified mask fragments.

R6.1-CenserNEW. Count of rim fragments of censers, updated from the 2017 analysis and including unslipped/unburnished open bowl rims classified retroactively as censers.

R6.2-AshTryNEW. Count of crudely finished plates, vessel form P1 in the Coarse type class.

R6-CenserAll. Total of R6.1 and R6.2.

Censer Join frag. Count of join fragments of censer forms C3 and C4 registered in 2017 (see Figure 8.28k-m); not included in the variable R6-CenserAll.

Censer Dome frag. Count of dome fragments of censer form C4 registered in 2017 (see Figure 8.1 and 8.28n); not included in the variable R6-CenserAll

R7-GrndStnSphr. Count of fragments of ground stone spheres.

R8-fetish/divination. Count of specimens that may have been personal fetishes or objects used for divination, including quartz crystals, the chunk of arsenopyrite, and the chunk of pyrite or iron ore.

R9-Spatula. Count of fragments of ceramic spatulas.

R10-Stamp/cylinder seal. Count of fragments of ceramic stamps or cylinder seals.

R11-RitualMisc. Count of other miscellaneous possible ritual objects, including the ground stone rings, the fragment of a polished stone plaque, the fragments of minor sculpture, and the effigy net weight in fired clay.

R00-All Ritual objects. Count of all ritual objects R1.0 through R11.

Ceramic Bead. Count of fragments of ceramic beads.

Bone ornament. Count of all bone ornaments.

Bone: unfinished ring. Count of fragments of unfinished bone rings.

Soap stone disk bead. Disk bead of soapstone or basalt.

Misc ornaments of local materials (except ear ornaments). Count of fragments of ornaments made from what were probably local materials, including ceramics, stone, and bone.

Clay ear ornament. Count of fragments of ear ornaments.

Greenstone bead. Count of greenstone beads or fragments thereof.

Greenstone pendant. Count of greenstone pendants or fragments thereof.

Greenstone-ALL, w/prod debris. Count of all fragments of greenstone ornaments and production debris

Iron ore mirror. Count of fragments of iron ore mirrors

Mica frag. Count of fragments of mica.

Other stone ornament. Count of fragments of stone ornaments that do not fit into the above categories.

Exotic object. Includes all greenstone, iron ore, and mica fragments (see Chapter 25).

Stone bowl. Count of fragments of stone bowls.

Elite object. Includes all greenstone, iron ore, and mica fragments, plus fragments of stone bowls (see Chapter 25).

Fish hook. Count of fragments of fish hooks.

Pumice float. Total count.

Pebble net weight. Total count.

Cylindrical net weight. Total count.

Worked sherd net weight. Total count.

Fishing equipment-ALL. Total count of all items of fishing equipment.

Count of Obsidian.

Wt. of Obsidian (g).

C1.1-ClayCoil. Total count of accidentally fired clay coils (ceramic production debris).

C1.2-ClayTab. Total count of accidentally fired tabs (ceramic production debris).

C1.3-Unfired clay object. Total count.

C1.4-Unfired figurine. Total count.

C1.5-Polisher. Total count of pebble polishers.

C1.6-Sherd pot scraper. Total count.

C1.8-Paint palettes. Total count.

C1.0-Ceramic production-ALL. Total of C1.1 through C1.8.

C2.1-Pecking stone. Total count.

C2.2-Pecking-polishing stone. Total count.

C2.0-Production of grinding stones. Total of C2.1 and C2.2.

C3.1-Awl. Total count.

C3.2-Pins A+B. Total count of pins of type A or B.

C3.3-Pins, misc. Total count of pins of type C, type D, or unidentified to type.

C3.4-Weaving tools. Total count.

C3.5-Needles. Total count.

C3.6-Modeled spindle whorl. Total count.

C3.7-Worked sherd-spindle whorl. Total count.

3.0-Weaving/basketry-ALL. Total of C3.1 through C3.7.

C4.1-Small hammer stone. Total count.

C4.3-Antler tool. Total count.

C4.2-Bipolar hammerstone. Total count.

C4.4-Stone artifact-secondary use as hammerstone. Pestles with secondary use as hammerstones.

C4.0-Knapping obsidian-ALL tools. Total count.

C5.1-Sandstone abrader (all types). Total count.

C5.2-Greenstone production debris. Total count.

C5.3-Bone debitage-flake saw. Bone debitage produced by these of stone tools.

C5.4-Bone debitage-string-cut. Bone debitage produced by these of string cutting technique.

C5.5-Highly polished stone tool. Total count.

C5.6-Sherd whetstone. Total count.

C5.0-Lapidary/bone artifact production-ALL. Total count of objects that may have been involved in lapidary work or bone artifact production, including tools, unfinished objects, and debitage. Total of C5.1 through C5.6.

C6.1-Axes. Total count.

C6.2-Celtiform tools. Total count.

C6.3-Chisels. Total count.

C6.4-Tooth cutter (Orthogeomys). Total count of utilized giant pocket gopher incisors.

C6.5-Pumice shaft straightener. Total count.

C6.6-Pumice handstone. Total count.

C6.7-Stone saw. Total count.

C6.0-Wood working-ALL. Total count of objects that may have been used for woodworking, including axes, the celtiform tools, the small chisel, the pumice and worked-sherd shaft straighteners, and the utilized giant pocket gopher incisors.

Pumice abrading tool. Total count.

Expedient pumice abrader (minus shaft straighteners). Total count.

Sandstone abrader-Concave. Total count.

Sandstone abrader-Saw. Total count.

Sandstone abrader-Grooved. Total count.

Sandstone abrader-Misc. Total count.

Sandstone abrader-Drill. Total count.

Sherd reamer. Total count.

Maize griding-mano+metate. Total of manos and metates.

Mano. Total count.

Metate. Total count.

Mortar. Total count.

Mortar/stn bwl. Count of objects not definitively identified as either mortar or stone bowls.

Pestle. Total count.

From 1,066 individual screened proveniences, 531 were identified as yielding samples of domestic refuse that were (relatively) unmixed chronologically or otherwise of interest for analyses. Based on stratigraphic criteria, the 531 original proveniences were consolidated into the 225 Initial Refuse Samples. For the analysis of rare materials, those were further consolidated into 55 Lumped Refuse Samples. Appendix A lists original minimal proveniences with refuse sample designations and other basic information. Data Record 2.1 (Initial Refuse Samples) is an analyzable spreadsheet with the slightly pruned set of Initial Refuse Samples used in analyses, particularly for Chapters 19 and 25.

The criterion of most interest in selection of proveniences for inclusion among the refuse samples was the degree to which the artifacts they yielded constituted secondary refuse (items collected from their primary contexts of use, dumped in another location, and not subsequently disturbed) as opposed to tertiary refuse (items dumped in one location and subsequently reworked in various ways, potentially including removal to a new location). (See Rosenswig 2009:16; Schiffer 1972). The distinction between tertiary and secondary refuse is a fuzzy one, best envisioned as a continuum in which the question is the degree to which a set of artifacts approximates the ideal of secondary refuse or instead strays toward the mixed, worked-over character of tertiary refuse (Lesure 2014:11).

The Initial Refuse Samples are labeled with a four digit number followed by a letter. The first two digits correspond to the mound in which the sample is located—01 for Mound 1, 32 for Mound 32, and so forth. The first two digits for off-mound deposits are simply 00. The second two digits are identification numbers for each sample. Within each mound excavation, each sample was assigned a unique identification number. Thus Sample 0103 is the third sample from Mound 1, 1203 is the third sample from Mound 12, and so forth. In some instances, effort was made to assign sample codes in accordance with stratigraphy. In other cases, however, that was not feasible or practical, and in general the two-digit sample code should be treated as an arbitrary cataloging device. Thus the fact that Sample 1267 comes after 1251 and before 1272 has no spatial, stratigraphic, or chronological significance for understanding Sample 1267 other than that all three derive from Mound 12. Each sample label ends with a letter (A through E) that identifies the level of analysis of pottery from that unit. The Lumped Refuse Samples are abbreviated mnemonics that note mound and other distinguishing information, such as phase (L = Locona, LL = Late Locona, O = Ocós, C = Cherla), unit number, or feature number.

Selection of refuse samples

Identification of appropriate deposits (those approaching the ideal of secondary refuse) involved an assessment of formation processes based on stratigraphy, the density and size of artifacts, and phase assignments of the ceramics. Stratigraphic observations allowed the identification of occupation surfaces, platforms, pits, erosional features, slope wash, and silted channels. Consideration of the density and size of artifacts allowed occupation surfaces to be distinguished from sheet middens. The contents of pits varied, indicating different depositional processes. Artifact densities were compared based on the volumetric density of sherds (kilograms of sherds per m3). A proxy for sherd size was obtained for each deposit by dividing the weight of sherds by the number of sherds, yielding average sherd weight (g/sherd). Where ceramic analysis reached Level A, another assessment of sherd size was derived from the rim analysis. The rim sherd completeness index is the proportion of rim sherds that constitute 15 percent or more of the original mouth of the vessel, among rim sherds constituting 5 percent or more of the original (after Lesure et al. 2014b:176).

Excavations followed one of two basic methods, one for stratigraphic investigations, the other for extensive exposures.

Stratigraphic investigations were small test pits (generally 1 x 2 m) or trenches (generally in sections of 1 x 2 or 1 x 3 m) excavated in arbitrary 20 cm levels and usually screened top to bottom through a 5 mm mesh. Levels were sometimes excavated to conform to natural stratigraphy if stratigraphic changes were identified during excavation.

For the extensive excavations, a grid of 2 x 2 m units was laid out over the surface of the mound. Excavation proceeded by natural stratigraphic units. Excessively deep natural units were sometimes subdivided arbitrarily for more refined stratigraphic control.

Units thus defined stratigraphically and/or arbitrarily were referred to as lots, and each was given a unique number.

Lots had no preassigned size or shape but rather were defined by the excavator in accordance with each new stratigraphic situation encountered. In abbreviated provenience designations, lots or levels are preceded by a slash. Thus Md. 12 P5/13 refers to Level 13 of Test Pit 5, Mound 12, while Md. 12 E4/15 refers to Lot 15 in Grid Unit E4 at Mound 12 Since both arbitrary and natural criteria were used in defining levels (in the stratigraphic investigations) and lots (in the extensive exposures), these two forms of provenience designations sometimes resembled each other.

Levels, however, were always defined solely within individual test pits or trenches. As a result, levels with the same number in different test units are not necessarily correlated.

Lots, in the 1992–1993 excavations at Mounds 1 and 12, were not confined to the boundaries of individual excavation units but were defined within each excavation locale as a whole. Samples from the same lot number but different grid units are therefore from the same stratigraphic deposit. In 1997, during excavations of Mound 32 and Mz-250, a new system was introduced: lots were uniquely designated proveniences.

See Chapter 5 for further discussion of that system and how it differs from that used in 1992–1993.

A single, arbitrary, primary datum was established for each mound or off-mound excavation locale. The datum was generally 10 to 20 cm above the highest ground in each locale so that all depths could be expressed in centimeters below datum (cm bd). We used line levels and string to set up datum stakes near each excavation unit based on this primary datum. Beginning and ending depths for each lot or level, as well as depths of features or significant artifacts, were measured by line levels from these datum stakes.

Screening

Stratigraphic excavations were generally screened top to bottom through a 5 mm mesh. Selected units of the extensive excavations (and some of the trench sections at Mound 32) were not screened. Unscreened lots included deposits of slope wash or platform construction. All culturally significant lots, including occupation surfaces, floors, post holes, features, and midden deposits, were screened. All materials remaining in the screen, including ceramics, obsidian, jade, magnetite, bone, ground stone, fire-cracked rock, pumice fragments, burnt daub, and even pebbles, were retained for analysis in the laboratory. Burials, floors, structures, and post holes were numbered separately. Units that did not fall into one of those categories but that appeared to have cultural significance were labeled feature. The term floor was used to designate all living surfaces identified in the excavations, regardless of whether those were structure floors or simply patio or activity areas. We numbered cultural units of each class sequentially either within the site as a whole (burials) or within each mound or off-mound excavation locale (floors, post holes, and features). The remains of perishable buildings were numbered in reverse chronological order in each excavation locale (for example, Structure 1 is later than Structure 2). In these data records and the associated chapters, we refer to structures either by their full formal designation (for example, Mound 6 Structure 4) or in abbreviated form, with the mound number, a hyphen, and the structure number (Mound 6 Structure 4 becomes Structure 6-4, and Mound 1 Structure 2 becomes Structure 1-2). From 1990 through 1993, when we assigned numbers to features in the field, we usually did not also assign them lot or level numbers if they were removed as single units. Large or complicated features, however, were divided into multiple lots or levels. Thus Mound 12 Feature 19, a trash pit, was removed as a single unit and therefore does not also have any associated lot number, whereas Mound 12 Feature 2, a complex trash- and sediment-filled ditch, is divided into Lots 12, 13, 15, 19, and 22 where it appears in Units E3 and E4. The lack of a lot or level number associated with some features proved annoying as we worked with the data, and in the 1997 excavations, all features were assigned at least one lot number.

Most features were completely excavated upon identification. We took 2- to 4-liter sediment samples from trash-filled pits and midden deposits for flotation. Human burials were exposed using ice picks and paintbrushes. Bone preservation was fair to very poor. In several instances we applied a solution of Duco cement and acetone to the bones before removal in an attempt to keep them intact. Basic processing of the cultural materials was carried out concurrent with the excavations in a field laboratory. Artemio Villatoro of the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) supervised the washing, sorting by material type, counting, and weighing of all materials. After the ceramics from each lot had been counted and weighed, they were sorted again to identify all rims, diagnostic body sherds, and slipped body sherds. Unslipped, non-diagnostic body sherds were then typically discarded. As of 2019, materials are still curated at the NWAF laboratory in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas.

Naming

Several systems for designating excavation units have been employed. Ceja Tenorio (1985) excavated test pits, which he numbered sequentially irrespective of where they were located. Test Pits 1 through 3 were in Mound 1, while Test Pits 15 through 19 were in Mound 5, and so on. In 1990 a second system was initiated. In this system, test units were numbered sequentially, starting from 1, in each new mound investigated. Thus Michael Ryan excavated Mound 7 Test Pits 1, 2, and 3, while Lesure excavated Mound 12 Test Pit 1. At the same time, we retained Ceja’s sequential numeration for isolated off-mound tests, excavating Test Pits 27, 28, 29, and 30. In these data records and the associated book, test pits are referred to simply as pits, sometimes abbreviated as P. Thus P29 is Test Pit 29 and Md. 12 P5 is Test Pit 5 at Mound 12. Trenches at Mounds 12 and 32 were numbered and divided into lettered sections. Md. 12 T1E is Section E of Trench 1 at Mound 12, while Md. 32 T4F is Section F of Trench 4 at Mound 32. For the large, horizontal exposures at Mounds 1, 6, and 12, a grid of 2 x 2 m units was established on each mound. Rows along one axis were designated by letters, rows along the other axis by numbers. Each grid unit can thus be uniquely described by a letter and number combination, such as Unit E4, G7, and so forth.

Discovery of midden deposits in the off-mound Test Pit 32 prompted a gradual expansion of this test to 12 adjacent units covering 36.5 m2. The adjacent units were labeled with letters and sometimes numbers: Unit 32A, Unit 32B2, etc. (See Figure 6.11.) That excavation as a whole will be referred to as the Pit 32 excavation. The other off-mound location that saw significant excavation will be referred to as Mz-250. It was originally identified as a small site adjacent to Paso de la Amada, with the site code Mz-250 (Clark 1994a:163). Clark (2004a:Figure 2.5a) now includes this area as part of “greater Paso de la Amada.” The 11 units excavated in 1997 were numbered 1 through 11 in the order in which they were opened (Figure 6.16). The excavation as a whole is referred to with the original site designation, Mz-250, though we treat it as part of Paso de la Amada.

A constant concern during the excavations was the effort to trace boundaries of deposits accurately in order to retrieve clean samples of the cultural materials they contained. Our success varied according to characteristics of the deposit, and it was sometimes difficult to trace strata as we came down on them in extensive excavations, even when we had the profiles of tests pits or trenches as guides. The surfaces underlying the platforms in Mounds 1, 12, and 32 were identifiable in profile and generally traceable as we came down on them in the extensive excavations, though we did have some problems in a few units of Mounds 1 and 12. Pits penetrating into sterile substrata were generally identifiable from above based on color and/or texture of the matrix and the high density of artifacts. Their lower boundaries were also clear. Examples include Features 8 and 15 at Mound 1 and Features 2, 10, and 19 at Mound 12. Cherla-phase pits that penetrated into Locona/Ocós deposits were more of a challenge. Color and texture distinctions were difficult to follow or nonexistent, and we traced the boundaries of the pits mainly by noting changes in the density of artifacts. Examples include Feature 2 in Mound 11, Feature 1 in Test 29, and Feature 8 at Mound 32. Despite these challenges encountered during excavation, a more significant factor in the identification of appropriate samples for chronological and social analysis is mixing of materials in the original deposits. A background admixture of earlier and sometimes later materials was common in most deposits. The relatively unconsolidated nature of the sediments at the site and substantial earthen movement by the inhabitants yielded admixtures of earlier materials. Root action and the burrowing activities of rodents yielded admixture of both earlier and later materials.

Refuse units considered here were classified according to the existing Initial and Early Formative chronology for the Mazatán zone (Blake et al. 1995; Clark and Cheetham 2005; Clark personal communication). The phases are identified in Figure 1.4 and a seriation of refuse samples is discussed in Chapter 20. There are four principal phases involved: Barra (1900–1700 BC), Locona (1700–1500 BC), Ocós (1500–1400 BC), and Cherla (1400–1300 BC). Paso de la Amada appears to have been abandoned by the Cuadros phase (1300–1200 BC). There was ephemeral occupation in the Jocotal phase (1200–1000 BC), but none of the refuse samples considered in this volume dates later than the Cherla phase. No Barra-phase refuse deposits were discovered in the excavations reported in this volume. In addition to refuse samples identified as Locona, Ocós, and Cherla, certain units were identified as Early Locona (perhaps 1700 to 1650 BC) and others as Late Locona (perhaps 1500 or 1450 to 1400 BC).